Chrono Compendium
Zenan Plains - Site Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Master Garland on January 17, 2012, 03:04:04 am
-
Well Zeality I beg to know what makes you so sure of such matters. How am I so "wrong" and you so right?
There is a God, all existence in the universe cannot be just one cosmic accident. If it were the case the probabilities must be so minuet that it's very dubious to say the least. As for fetuses not feeling pain please give me some sources from at least 4+ establishments from a socoally neutral source(for example neither pro-choice or pro-life) for evidence.
As for seeds they contain the information for the genetic material that will make the tree be what it is. To put it plainly the sperm and the egg of the respective carriers in humans are the seed equivalent; while the developing fetus is the basic seedling so to speak. It is a proven fact that fetuses kick and move and even hear while in their mothers womb. The brain controls every impulse in which case a fetus has to posses active brain activity as well.
However, the fetuses feeling of individuality is obviously a thing it cannot calculate as it has not experienced the outside world or other living beings fully yet.
Oh well... I guees I'm really just a mindless religious romantic 'sigh' what can I do. But no all you other people are always right and just and know everything sorry for ever doubting your genius:extensive sarcasm implied:
EDIT NOTE: I must rephrase one of my thoughts on my first post. A child should in all actuallity not be killed because she was raped. It would display better character and heart for her to bare said child but if she aborts it it is her choice albeit wrong as it is. I'll simply put it this way it is the womans choice completely though life is the best choice.
-
The proof, and it is conclusive, regarding fetuses not feeling pain is simple, at least up to a point. The brain doesn't start to develop until 7 weeks after conception:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112/NSECTIONGROUP=2
No brain, no pain. It's a simple as that. Thus, there cannot possibly be an ethical case for opposing abortion prior to seven weeks after conception.
I'm insufficiently versed in biology to comment on when the nerves needed for the perception of pain are in place, but this is likely known to science and may push the point of ethical certainty further out. The question of when precisely the brain is developed enough to have a conscious experience is trickier, but is of paramount importance: Until the fetus develops a conscious experience, the idea of an ethical case against abortion is a cruel joke.
Again, I ask you how it is that you claim not to be a misogynist while also holding that this unconscious cluster of cells is of greater ethical concern than a fully functioning woman?
-
EDIT NOTE: I must rephrase one of my thoughts on my first post. A child should in all actuallity not be killed because she was raped.
You still didn't answer my question though. Why is rape an acceptable reason to have an abortion? Like I said before, if you are pro-life shouldn't you be against abortion completely?
It would display better character and heart for her to bare said child but if she aborts it it is her choice albeit wrong as it is.
Hmm. Better character. Can you comprehend the position and mindset of someone who has become pregnant through rape, Master Garland?
I'll simply put it this way it is the womans choice completely though life is the best choice.
Why not hold that position for all abortions, then?
Also, the "an aborted child could have done such and such amazing thing" argument doesn't hold much weight once you take into consideration that those aborted children could have been wife-beaters or serial killers. I hate to invoke Godwin's Law, but it irks me when people make the "that kid could have been the next Einstein" comment. For all we know the kid could have been the next Hitler. The argument goes both ways.
-
Greetings, Garland. I do hope you will not knock us all down (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy)! Gwahahahaha.
First, regarding Zeality, give it time. He’s like cheese: it takes a while to wrap your mind around why anyone would ever have thought to eat chunky, discolored milk (not that Z is chunky or discolored, by any means).
Anywho, I am curious as to if your stance is a political or personal one. That is, would you vote to outlaw abortion except in those circumstances you have listed?
Your economic notes are ones that I've never actually heard from a pro-choicer. When defining themselves, both sides tend to resort to a question of rights and morals, not costs and benefit analyses. Regardless, to sum up a reaction to it: even if the world is doomed from overpopulation, that does not justify killing an individual, but likewise, the world being able to support another individual does not justify the creation of that person. General economic considerations are ill-placed in this discussion.
As for your comments directed to Lord J esq, he has already said that he is likely to not be around much, particularly for new discussions, so it is unlike that he'll see, let alone respond, to you. However, if I might be so bold, I suspect he'd object to your supposition that a fetus is a substantially separate entity from the woman. This is, in part, a matter of "personhood" and when it begins. He decided not to address that issue when last we talked on the matter, and has since left, so I can't speak on how he might have defined it. For my own part, I like to use the term to use to mean an individual possessing the complete rights of a human (as relevant here, those would be the rights of life and self-determination). When personhood begins is a topic much debated. Again, for myself, I would say that there is insufficient evidence on this topic to make a firm stance anywhere (a stance which J disagrees with, to note).
However, since you are religious, perhaps I might be allowed to use the term "ensoulment," as it allows for slightly different arguments. Ensoulment would be the point at which the immortal soul enters the mortal flesh. The bible does not specify on what day this occurs, although there is good reason to assume that it is not at conception. The reason for this is simple: the majority of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, which themselves occur by far in the most part in the first trimester. This is a necessary side-effect of the process in which cells in general divide and in specific how gametes combine. Ensoulment during this period is problematic as it necessitates that we assume God arranged things so that the majority of souls entering into flesh would never be born. This then brings up the question of why God would create an inefficient universe. Furthermore, there is evidence in the Christian tradition to imply that ensoulment begins at birth. Baptism is supposed to represent a second birth, the passing of the old life and a starting of a new life. Birth, not conception, is the key analogy regarding the state and new life of a soul.
Note, I am not saying that ensoulment doesn't begin at conception, but merely that there are reasons to assume that ensoulment doesn't begin at conception, and that evidence to the contrary is lacking.
Since even on theological grounds this matter is unclear, the axiom "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity," erring on the charitable side is the best course of action. Which is to say, to be loving. By vigorously opposing abortion, one creates an atmosphere of intolerance and hate (even if one is not these things oneself), which is contradictory to the great commission.
Even if you always maintain that abortion is wrong, it is still a necessity that you are fully charitable to those who support it and who partake in it. Wrong or not, people undergoing it still need social support and kindness. You would better direct your effort of opposing abortion by aiming at the source, not the manifestation. That is, instead of picketing abortion clinics (not saying you have, just an example), volunteer for planned parenthood, so as to help ensure that only those people who want children (and thus will not want an abortion) will get pregnancy. Volunteer with community watch programs to reduce the occurrences of rape. Volunteer with health organizations to ensure that those who do want to be pregnant get proper nutrition so as to avoid defects. Better to work to ensure that all women who get pregnant want to be pregnant, than to tell some that are that they have to stay that way.
@RD, both the central and peripheral nervous systems begin with the neural plate, which develops around prenatal day 19. That is just the beginning of the PNS, to note: I haven't been able to find out when it starts functioning. However, I would object to the statement "no brain, no pain." We shouldn't confuse the ability to be cognizant of pain with the ability to experience pain.
As for your other question, one needn’t hold that a cluster of cells is of greater “ethical concern” than a woman, just of equal concern. Many people hold that the right to life is supreme (except when life is being deprived for want of basic necessities, then the right of property is held as supreme), thus many people are willing to allow for the right of self-determination of the woman to be infringed in order to allow for the right of life. Often this same devil’s deal is involved in pro-lifers allowing for abortion in the case of the woman’s health. Of course, this does still require assuming that a cluster of cells is of equal to a woman, which seems misogynistic in itself.
@Faust, to play the devil's advocate, there is already the base assumption in society that bodily autonomy can be properly infringed upon when that autonomy threatens the individual. That is, if someone's trying to kill themselves, generally society feels it has the right to inject that it knows best and, in turn, feels it has the right to stop the individual. If that is permissible, then that seemingly creates a precedent for society also saying that in other cases an individual's bodily autonomy can be infringed upon. Why, then, not in this case? Or would you say that neither case is acceptable?
@ Saj, while I know you didn’t ask this of me, I suspect that a reason that many pro-lifers are willing to give an allowance for rape is that there is an underlying sense of legality that motivates the position. There is the supposition that if a woman is pregnant, then it is her own fault. They apply the phrase “if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime” to the situation. There may be the sticking out of tongues, the putting of thumbs in ears, and the repeated use of the word “nyeh” or “neener” that accompanies this. Rape, however, is a recognized violation of this paradigm. Abortion, then, is acceptable because being pregnant is not the fault of the woman. She has not willingly done the crime, and thus it is perceived that she should be freed from the time.
One obvious problem with such a position is that pregnancy is then cast as a sort of punishment. Unfortunately, I suspect that even when pro-lifers are aware of this, they are alright with such a conception. Of course, under such a model, “life” really has nothing to do with if abortion is acceptable or not: abortion becomes an acquittal, and the pro-lifers have given no pardon to the crime of sex.
-
@Faust, to play the devil's advocate, there is already the base assumption in society that bodily autonomy can be properly infringed upon when that autonomy threatens the individual. That is, if someone's trying to kill themselves, generally society feels it has the right to inject that it knows best and, in turn, feels it has the right to stop the individual. If that is permissible, then that seemingly creates a precedent for society also saying that in other cases an individual's bodily autonomy can be infringed upon. Why, then, not in this case? Or would you say that neither case is acceptable?
Thanks Thought, this is an interesting challenge. I suspect we can draw a delineation between the two situations, just as there's a delineation between allowing a person to jump off a building and allowing a person to refuse medical care. However, I need to ponder more on where this delineation comes from (or should rightly come from). The best I can come up with for now is that it might revolve around whether the person is judged to be reasonably sane at the time they make a decision of bodily consequence.
-
Greetings, Garland. I do hope you will not knock us all down (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy)! Gwahahahaha.
First, regarding Zeality, give it time. He’s like cheese: it takes a while to wrap your mind around why anyone would ever have thought to eat chunky, discolored milk (not that Z is chunky or discolored, by any means).
Anywho, I am curious as to if your stance is a political or personal one. That is, would you vote to outlaw abortion except in those circumstances you have listed?
Your economic notes are ones that I've never actually heard from a pro-choicer. When defining themselves, both sides tend to resort to a question of rights and morals, not costs and benefit analyses. Regardless, to sum up a reaction to it: even if the world is doomed from overpopulation, that does not justify killing an individual, but likewise, the world being able to support another individual does not justify the creation of that person. General economic considerations are ill-placed in this discussion.
As for your comments directed to Lord J esq, he has already said that he is likely to not be around much, particularly for new discussions, so it is unlike that he'll see, let alone respond, to you. However, if I might be so bold, I suspect he'd object to your supposition that a fetus is a substantially separate entity from the woman. This is, in part, a matter of "personhood" and when it begins. He decided not to address that issue when last we talked on the matter, and has since left, so I can't speak on how he might have defined it. For my own part, I like to use the term to use to mean an individual possessing the complete rights of a human (as relevant here, those would be the rights of life and self-determination). When personhood begins is a topic much debated. Again, for myself, I would say that there is insufficient evidence on this topic to make a firm stance anywhere (a stance which J disagrees with, to note).
However, since you are religious, perhaps I might be allowed to use the term "ensoulment," as it allows for slightly different arguments. Ensoulment would be the point at which the immortal soul enters the mortal flesh. The bible does not specify on what day this occurs, although there is good reason to assume that it is not at conception. The reason for this is simple: the majority of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, which themselves occur by far in the most part in the first trimester. This is a necessary side-effect of the process in which cells in general divide and in specific how gametes combine. Ensoulment during this period is problematic as it necessitates that we assume God arranged things so that the majority of souls entering into flesh would never be born. This then brings up the question of why God would create an inefficient universe. Furthermore, there is evidence in the Christian tradition to imply that ensoulment begins at birth. Baptism is supposed to represent a second birth, the passing of the old life and a starting of a new life. Birth, not conception, is the key analogy regarding the state and new life of a soul.
Note, I am not saying that ensoulment doesn't begin at conception, but merely that there are reasons to assume that ensoulment doesn't begin at conception, and that evidence to the contrary is lacking.
Since even on theological grounds this matter is unclear, the axiom "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity," erring on the charitable side is the best course of action. Which is to say, to be loving. By vigorously opposing abortion, one creates an atmosphere of intolerance and hate (even if one is not these things oneself), which is contradictory to the great commission.
Even if you always maintain that abortion is wrong, it is still a necessity that you are fully charitable to those who support it and who partake in it. Wrong or not, people undergoing it still need social support and kindness. You would better direct your effort of opposing abortion by aiming at the source, not the manifestation. That is, instead of picketing abortion clinics (not saying you have, just an example), volunteer for planned parenthood, so as to help ensure that only those people who want children (and thus will not want an abortion) will get pregnancy. Volunteer with community watch programs to reduce the occurrences of rape. Volunteer with health organizations to ensure that those who do want to be pregnant get proper nutrition so as to avoid defects. Better to work to ensure that all women who get pregnant want to be pregnant, than to tell some that are that they have to stay that way.
@RD, both the central and peripheral nervous systems begin with the neural plate, which develops around prenatal day 19. That is just the beginning of the PNS, to note: I haven't been able to find out when it starts functioning. However, I would object to the statement "no brain, no pain." We shouldn't confuse the ability to be cognizant of pain with the ability to experience pain.
As for your other question, one needn’t hold that a cluster of cells is of greater “ethical concern” than a woman, just of equal concern. Many people hold that the right to life is supreme (except when life is being deprived for want of basic necessities, then the right of property is held as supreme), thus many people are willing to allow for the right of self-determination of the woman to be infringed in order to allow for the right of life. Often this same devil’s deal is involved in pro-lifers allowing for abortion in the case of the woman’s health. Of course, this does still require assuming that a cluster of cells is of equal to a woman, which seems misogynistic in itself.
@Faust, to play the devil's advocate, there is already the base assumption in society that bodily autonomy can be properly infringed upon when that autonomy threatens the individual. That is, if someone's trying to kill themselves, generally society feels it has the right to inject that it knows best and, in turn, feels it has the right to stop the individual. If that is permissible, then that seemingly creates a precedent for society also saying that in other cases an individual's bodily autonomy can be infringed upon. Why, then, not in this case? Or would you say that neither case is acceptable?
@ Saj, while I know you didn’t ask this of me, I suspect that a reason that many pro-lifers are willing to give an allowance for rape is that there is an underlying sense of legality that motivates the position. There is the supposition that if a woman is pregnant, then it is her own fault. They apply the phrase “if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime” to the situation. There may be the sticking out of tongues, the putting of thumbs in ears, and the repeated use of the word “nyeh” or “neener” that accompanies this. Rape, however, is a recognized violation of this paradigm. Abortion, then, is acceptable because being pregnant is not the fault of the woman. She has not willingly done the crime, and thus it is perceived that she should be freed from the time.
One obvious problem with such a position is that pregnancy is then cast as a sort of punishment. Unfortunately, I suspect that even when pro-lifers are aware of this, they are alright with such a conception. Of course, under such a model, “life” really has nothing to do with if abortion is acceptable or not: abortion becomes an acquittal, and the pro-lifers have given no pardon to the crime of sex.
Thank you so very much on the deep insight on the many topics brought about. Your post was indeed a very interesting read, I appreciate it. I always was more of a preventive action type of person over attacking after the fact sort of individual and so your statement of planned parenthood and such thing meets my position eye to eye.
As for the topic of ensloument I am under the impression that it must occur in the process of the fetuses development in the womb. In the Bible it states the Jesus was conceived by the holy spirit into Mother Mary also John the Baptist was filled with the holy spirit even before his birth. This information can be found in Luke 1 : 41-45 Elisabeth(mother of John) is filled with the Holy Spirit and Jesus and John still in their mothers wombs leap toward each other.
I just want to add one little tidbit here. The reason for many of the inefficiencies found in nature namely the degrading of all things elements and such over time as well as the 2nd law of Thermodynamics etc is a result of the Curse laid upon the Earth after Adam sinned. In the beginning Earth was perfect and everything was lush, beautiful, and peaceful. There was no death or hate and animals and humans only ate vegetation it was a perfect world then.
-
@RD, both the central and peripheral nervous systems begin with the neural plate, which develops around prenatal day 19. That is just the beginning of the PNS, to note: I haven't been able to find out when it starts functioning. However, I would object to the statement "no brain, no pain." We shouldn't confuse the ability to be cognizant of pain with the ability to experience pain.
Thank you for the information!
I'm not sure that I see the reason for your objection. It seems like this may be a distinction without a difference. I suppose the nerves responsible for signaling pain could be stimulated directly when not connected to a functioning brain, and in that case, pain would be experience in a technical sense, but assuming there was still a brain in the organism, simply not attached to that nerve, it would not cause any change to the conscious entity. I'm honestly baffled as to how this could have ethical weight.
As for your other question, one needn’t hold that a cluster of cells is of greater “ethical concern” than a woman, just of equal concern. Many people hold that the right to life is supreme (except when life is being deprived for want of basic necessities, then the right of property is held as supreme), thus many people are willing to allow for the right of self-determination of the woman to be infringed in order to allow for the right of life. Often this same devil’s deal is involved in pro-lifers allowing for abortion in the case of the woman’s health. Of course, this does still require assuming that a cluster of cells is of equal to a woman, which seems misogynistic in itself.
Even if I concede that being anti-abortion "merely" requires holding a cluster of cells in equal regard to a woman (an opinion I disagree with, but don't find unreasonable) I maintain that such a position is still clearly misogynistic. I have allowed for the possibility, since it came up in another discussion on this topic, that an anti-abortion individual may hold a cluster of cells up to be of equal or greater value to a man as well as to a woman. This would be more properly termed misanthropy, but as that term doesn't carry weight as a condemnation, I prefer to state it that those individuals are misandrists in addition to being misogynists.
So, even being as generous to the anti-abortion side as I can, I must still conclude that to be opposed to abortion requires one to be a misogynist.
I hadn't thought of your particular wording on the absurdity of opposing an intelligent and effective health care system, particularly in regards to the hypocrisy in play when such views are held by anti-abortionists. I may have to steal it.
-
As for the topic of ensloument I am under the impression that it must occur in the process of the fetuses development in the womb. In the Bible it states the Jesus was conceived by the holy spirit into Mother Mary also John the Baptist was filled with the holy spirit even before his birth. This information can be found in Luke 1 : 41-45 Elisabeth(mother of John) is filled with the Holy Spirit and Jesus and John still in their mothers wombs leap toward each other.
Well, it is important to note that the Holy Spirit is not a human soul. Indeed, unless you believe in modalism*, it isn't Jesus' "soul" either. Thus, it would be possible to be conceived by the Holy Spirit, or to be filled with the Holy Spirit, without necessarily having a soul.
As for the second part, it seems that you are suggesting that "leaping" is indicative of a soul. However, in Luke 19:40 it is said that if people stop praising God, then the rocks will cry out to do so. Does this lithic action then indicate that stones have souls?
Something else that might be worthwhile for you to consider is that the concept of the soul has evolved greatly over the last 2000 years. Under the old Jewish tradition, the soul was essentially your breath (when God breathed life into Adam, he was breathing into Adam a soul). Your last breath was your soul exiting your body, then. In turn, until one had taken their first breath, one did not have a soul. While neither Mary or Elisabeth state as much, from the Jewish tradition, it is reasonable to assume that they wouldn't have said that John or Jesus had a soul during the events you referenced.
Again, I am not saying that they didn't have souls at that point, just that one doesn't necessitate the other and that there is plenty of room and justification to interpret scripture in a different manner than you have.
*If you're not familiar with modalism, it is basically the belief that the three "persons" of the Trinity are just the same guy but in different modes. Sort of like in Transformers: Beast Machines, characters have a robot mode, a beast mode, and a vehicle mode. Under modalism, calling Jesus a different entity from the Holy Spirit would be like calling beast mode Optimus Primal a different being than vehicle mode Optimus Primal.
I just want to add one little tidbit here. The reason for many of the inefficiencies found in nature namely the degrading of all things elements and such over time as well as the 2nd law of Thermodynamics etc is a result of the Curse laid upon the Earth after Adam sinned. In the beginning Earth was perfect and everything was lush, beautiful, and peaceful. There was no death or hate and animals and humans only ate vegetation it was a perfect world then.
Would I be correct in assuming that you're a creationist, then? Probably a young-earth creationist? It might interest you to know, then, that within the Christian Tradition it wasn't until modern times that the Genesis account was widely taken as literal. St. Augustine of Hippo, for example, specifically warned against taking any one interpretation of the creation account as absolute truth. Thomas Aquinas as well. It has only been since the publication of The Origin of Species that a literalist interpretation of creation and Adam and Eve has come to gain such dominance. If I recall correctly (and I make no claim that I do), the main original proponent of the change was a seventh-day Adventist.
Even if that is put aside, if you review the biblical account, you will find no indication that original sin changed the universe to the extent that you describe. God is specific as to what changes occurred: the serpent lost its legs, the woman's labor pains increased, and the earth became less fertile. Nothing says that animals became meat eaters, that how human cells divided became different, etc. Those are things that are being supposed extra-canonically in order to support a specific interpretation, but they do not necessitate that that interpretation is correct, nor do those suppositions stem from canon. Indeed, take a closer look at the woman's curse: her labor pains increased, but were not created. Thus, pain existed before the fall. Why would there have been pain if it was a perfect world?
The answer, of course, is in the common misuse of the word "perfect." That word is meaningless unless the context is properly defined. A perfect hammer, for example, is a horrible quiche. Carnivores, entropy, wonderfully imperfect cell division (a necessity of life, mind you), etc, all can exist in a perfect world, depending on what one means by “perfect.” What you've described as existing before the fall isn't necessarily a perfect world, but it is a rather nice and easy one. The question is why did God create the universe, and if it is thus perfectly designed to satisfy that cause. Unless you know that cause, you can't say what fits with it and what doesn't.
I'm not sure that I see the reason for your objection. It seems like this may be a distinction without a difference. I suppose the nerves responsible for signaling pain could be stimulated directly when not connected to a functioning brain, and in that case, pain would be experience in a technical sense, but assuming there was still a brain in the organism, simply not attached to that nerve, it would not cause any change to the conscious entity. I'm honestly baffled as to how this could have ethical weight.
I'm not sure it has ethical weight for the topic of pain in specific, or even for the topic of abortion, but as a general philosophy, it has weight in other considerations. The "no brain, no pain" statement seems to indicate that unless one is aware of an experience, then that experience has no ethical significance. Does that seem like a valid interpretation of what you were saying?
Let's then apply that principle to a wildly different situation. A woman is drugged, passes out, and she is no longer cognizant of the events that subsequently transpire until she awakes. Under your model, as I understand it at least, drugging the woman might have ethical significance, but having sex with her while she is unconscious would not since she wouldn't have been cognizant of the event.
Or, in short, just because we might do something to a person or creature that it isn't aware of does not mean that those actions are in turn ethical. It doesn't mean that it is unethical, either, or non-ethical. Just that cognition isn't a good criteria to use.
(an opinion I disagree with, but don't find unreasonable)...
That was really my only goal. I wasn't trying to claim that it was free of bias, but rather to highlight the thinking that might lead someone to accept the position without realizing the bias.
I hadn't thought of your particular wording on the absurdity of opposing an intelligent and effective health care system, particularly in regards to the hypocrisy in play when such views are held by anti-abortionists. I may have to steal it.
Alas, I'm not sure what you're referring to, but regardless, feel free to steal!
-
Well, it is important to note that the Holy Spirit is not a human soul. Indeed, unless you believe in modalism*, it isn't Jesus' "soul" either. Thus, it would be possible to be conceived by the Holy Spirit, or to be filled with the Holy Spirit, without necessarily having a soul.
Interesting you mention this. The Bible states that we are filled with the Holy Spirit and tranformed to the image of God essentially. The kicker though is that we will not be souls forever in heaven we will posses new bodies that are re created to perfection we'll have bodies like Jesus has.
As for the second part, it seems that you are suggesting that "leaping" is indicative of a soul. However, in Luke 19:40 it is said that if people stop praising God, then the rocks will cry out to do so. Does this lithic action then indicate that stones have souls?
I am of the mindset that looks at fetuses and rocks under a fairly different light. It is true that the Bible uses many terms ie Mountains and waves to equate to people or nations in figurative terms. This example however is literal the two really did leap in the wombs of their mothers. As for weather or not they indended to leap is the thing to wonder. I believe it was influenced by the Lord and the Holy Spirit itself. I must add that Waves in the Bible as well as Mountais symbolize groups of people and nations respectively.
Something else that might be worthwhile for you to consider is that the concept of the soul has evolved greatly over the last 2000 years. Under the old Jewish tradition, the soul was essentially your breath (when God breathed life into Adam, he was breathing into Adam a soul). Your last breath was your soul exiting your body, then. In turn, until one had taken their first breath, one did not have a soul. While neither Mary or Elisabeth state as much, from the Jewish tradition, it is reasonable to assume that they wouldn't have said that John or Jesus had a soul during the events you referenced.
Yes indeed the viewpoint of many concepts in addition to that of souls have undergone substantial changes in interpretation over the centries in our worldy realm. The difference being is that the Word of God is never changing and retains itself throught all time it is what it is.
Again, I am not saying that they didn't have souls at that point, just that one doesn't necessitate the other and that there is plenty of room and justification to interpret scripture in a different manner than you have.
Just as I consider your points as well Thought.
*If you're not familiar with modalism, it is basically the belief that the three "persons" of the Trinity are just the same guy but in different modes. Sort of like in Transformers: Beast Machines, characters have a robot mode, a beast mode, and a vehicle mode. Under modalism, calling Jesus a different entity from the Holy Spirit would be like calling beast mode Optimus Primal a different being than vehicle mode Optimus Primal.
Yes I am familiar with Modalism. It is a rather simplistic way of interpreting the Trinity. With all things considered it seems to hold ground in any case. However the Trinity can also be something so complex that how it works may only be revealed to those in heaven with God. This is all conjecture mind you but most ideals regarding this matter are, considering the answer is never spoken of outright.
Would I be correct in assuming that you're a creationist, then? Probably a young-earth creationist? It might interest you to know, then, that within the Christian Tradition it wasn't until modern times that the Genesis account was widely taken as literal. St. Augustine of Hippo, for example, specifically warned against taking any one interpretation of the creation account as absolute truth. Thomas Aquinas as well. It has only been since the publication of The Origin of Species that a literalist interpretation of creation and Adam and Eve has come to gain such dominance. If I recall correctly (and I make no claim that I do), the main original proponent of the change was a seventh-day Adventist.
Your assumption is actually wrong. To be honest I am a bit in the dark on that matter. The reason being that in Genesis 1 before it even mentions Adam and Eve it talks of other Humans getting the command to be fruitful and multiply. This gives the impression that there were humans before Adam and Eve. May I also mention that there is what is called the "Gap Theory" this states that the account mentioned in Genesis is the second creation of Earth and it's inhabitants. It is implied that the mention of the humans before the mention of Adam etc has a unknown length of space in time between them who knows it could be millions of years or thousands. I also am rather curious of what the other unused ancient texts say of all this. When the canon of the Bible was put together by the Catholic Church some bits and pieces up to entire scrolls were left out. Those lost or hidden writings may reveal some much neede insight on the matter.
Even if that is put aside, if you review the biblical account, you will find no indication that original sin changed the universe to the extent that you describe. God is specific as to what changes occurred: the serpent lost its legs, the woman's labor pains increased, and the earth became less fertile. Nothing says that animals became meat eaters, that how human cells divided became different, etc. Those are things that are being supposed extra-canonically in order to support a specific interpretation, but they do not necessitate that that interpretation is correct, nor do those suppositions stem from canon. Indeed, take a closer look at the woman's curse: her labor pains increased, but were not created. Thus, pain existed before the fall. Why would there have been pain if it was a perfect world?
Indeed the Bible states what you said but in addition to it says that the ground will now bear thorns and thistles for you. Also God states before the fall of man that every seed bearing plant and vegetation shall be yours for food he never mentions killing animals for food in the beginning. The pain felt in Eves Labor before may have been slight uncomfort but not total pain, however after the curse yes labor pains became what they are now. Yes I can agree that pain to degree existed before the fall.
The answer, of course, is in the common misuse of the word "perfect." That word is meaningless unless the context is properly defined. A perfect hammer, for example, is a horrible quiche. Carnivores, entropy, wonderfully imperfect cell division (a necessity of life, mind you), etc, all can exist in a perfect world, depending on what one means by “perfect.” What you've described as existing before the fall isn't necessarily a perfect world, but it is a rather nice and easy one. The question is why did God create the universe, and if it is thus perfectly designed to satisfy that cause. Unless you know that cause, you can't say what fits with it and what doesn't.
Points well taken. The world then was perfect in the sight of the Lord and made for the good pleasure of himself and his loved creation humankind. I imagin that he wanted his creation to be as happy as possible as well as having many unblemished peace and pleasure and communion with himself and so on. What better way to do this then to place them to exist in a paradise like the Garden of Eden. Imperfect Cell division is when a Cell divides it leaves less Genetic material than that of which the parent cell possesed. This is in essence the culprit of aging and degeneration. On the other hand Cancer cells are perfect in what they are and never degrade so they can replicate till hell freezes over unblemished. In this light we can see the necessity of imperfect cell division. Before the curse though cells most likely replicated and divided perfectly without danger of causing death or deformity.
It looks as though this topic has digreesed to a different realm than was previously set on.
-
Wow, debating Christian theology on the Compendium. In a thread about stopping sexism, no less—something inherent and virtually foundational in most religions. I now declare the site to be officially, completely dead, and its original purpose and style totally perverted. The Chrono series is a dead franchise, and ROM hacking is lost here as well, but we at least still had the old guard of rationality. Now it's just a bunch of religious nutters.
Whatever. We had a good run while it lasted.
-
Z, stop being an ass.
The purpose of the majority of the discussion in the last few posts is clear. Even if you disagree with the means, you cannot disagree the intent of getting someone who has indicated that they aren't supportive of a woman's right to abortion to change their mind. That this is attempted through the means of a theological discourse is utterly unimportant: it is a matter of what the opponent is receptive to. If someone is receptive to philosophy, let us speak in philosophy. If one is receptive to mathematics, let us speak in mathematics. And yes, if one is receptive to theology, let us speak in theology.
-
I'm not sure it has ethical weight for the topic of pain in specific, or even for the topic of abortion, but as a general philosophy, it has weight in other considerations. The "no brain, no pain" statement seems to indicate that unless one is aware of an experience, then that experience has no ethical significance. Does that seem like a valid interpretation of what you were saying?
Let's then apply that principle to a wildly different situation. A woman is drugged, passes out, and she is no longer cognizant of the events that subsequently transpire until she awakes. Under your model, as I understand it at least, drugging the woman might have ethical significance, but having sex with her while she is unconscious would not since she wouldn't have been cognizant of the event.
Or, in short, just because we might do something to a person or creature that it isn't aware of does not mean that those actions are in turn ethical. It doesn't mean that it is unethical, either, or non-ethical. Just that cognition isn't a good criteria to use.
I can see how you could come to that conclusion, but it is not my position. When I speak of a conscious entity, I don't necessarily mean an individual who is presently conscious. I mean an individual who poses is a consciousness, even if it is dormant at present. A week old embryo has never been conscious, and lacks the capacity to be conscious. A drugged woman has been conscious, and if she has not been given an over dose, likely will be again. She is still in possession of a consciousness.
I'm not going to argue over whether a hypothetical woman would find it more or less traumatic to be abused while sober or to be forcibly drugged and then abused before waking up as I have no desire to even contemplate the topic. Both acts, however, are an intolerable violation of that woman's rights. Rights that she, as the possessor of a conscious experience, is entitled to. I will attempt to anticipate a question which may arise here: Attempting to eliminate someone's consciousness permanently, without their explicit consent, is certainly a violation of their rights.
But the embryo? How could it even possibly be abused? It has no notion of its own existence; it is living matter to be certain, but lacks consciousness.
Or, in short, just because we might do something to a person or creature that it isn't aware of does not mean that those actions are in turn ethical. It doesn't mean that it is unethical, either, or non-ethical. Just that cognition isn't a good criteria to use.
Cognition is part of how I define the scope of ethics. A rock can never be conscious; I consider it worthy of ethical consideration only in terms of how its manipulation, via natural forces or an intelligent agent, can effect conscious entities. In what way can I harm a rock? To continue with this example, the destruction of the Buddhist statues by the Taliban was not unethical because of the physical impact to the rocks, but because those statues were considered beautiful works of art by human intelligences who were cognizant of them.
In the previous example, the ethics of having sex with a non-consenting individual does not hinge on whether that individual is or is not conscious at that moment. As a conscious entity, they are entitled to decide explicitly who they will or will not allow to have sex with them, and on what terms.
Alas, I'm not sure what you're referring to, but regardless, feel free to steal!
"Many people hold that the right to life is supreme (except when life is being deprived for want of basic necessities, then the right of property is held as supreme)"
-
Phew, there's so much to read! I think I'll just reply this much for now.
There is a God, all existence in the universe cannot be just one cosmic accident. If it were the case the probabilities must be so minuet that it's very dubious to say the least.
Indeed! But the question is, what is the nature of this existence? As much as I enjoy reading the Bible (along with countless other Holy books from a hundred different religions), I take it as an allegorical representation rather than word-for-word precision -- I take the Bible, Quran and Bhagwad Gita as informative works of art to reflect on (I'm a poet myself) but not as a precise guide. For instance, I enjoy the 'Parable of Samaritan' and 'Book of Job', I learn from the ethics therein, but I have no reason to believe that such characters even existed; instead, I research them out of curiosity.
As for seeds they contain the information for the genetic material that will make the tree be what it is. To put it plainly the sperm and the egg of the respective carriers in humans are the seed equivalent; while the developing fetus is the basic seedling so to speak. It is a proven fact that fetuses kick and move and even hear while in their mothers womb. The brain controls every impulse in which case a fetus has to posses active brain activity as well.
You're right on that point. XD There is sufficient brain-activity in the fetus before conception, and you will find the babe move about; however, there is another factor contributing this, but haven't you considered it before?
Remember what RD stated, that the human brain does not develop until few weeks after conception, wherein the babe creates a "self" identity. Before conception, all the information passed from mother to babe from every senses and nourishment are actually the result of the babe being "part of the human body", of one identity, and that is of the mother. In which case, abortion at that point is like cutting your own arm rather than killing someone.
However, in regards to ethics, I do point this question to RD (I'm not really against abortion, but this question is just for amusement's sake). Considering the development of ego reaches its first stage 7 weeks after the conception of the child, and if that makes it perfectly fine for abortion, does that mean it's perfectly fine to kill a child after conception but before the first stage? I mean, no brain no pain; simple as that, right? Of course, I can anticipate what your response may be, but I'm far too curious to hear it from you.
Oh well... I guees I'm really just a mindless religious romantic 'sigh' what can I do. But no all you other people are always right and just and know everything sorry for ever doubting your genius:extensive sarcasm implied:
Sarcasm or not, I think I'll take that as a compliment, so thank you. XD
But seriously, don't consider yourself as "mindless religious". Well, being religious is not a problem, but just don't be "mindless", don't be a fanatic, and don't let religion manipulate you (Religion is a beautiful thing, but in the hands of wrong people, such as manipulative politicians, fundamentalists / dominionists and extremists, it can be devastating). Sometimes it takes effort to see things from another perspective and try to understand why other people do what they do, but in the end it's all worth it. I've seen a lot of religious folks do some incredibly amazing things, many of which are my good friends.
A child should in all actuallity not be killed because she was raped. It would display better character and heart for her to bare said child but if she aborts it it is her choice albeit wrong as it is. I'll simply put it this way it is the womans choice completely though life is the best choice.
The first sentence is something I do agree with (well, sort of anyway). The second sentence sounds plausible, but the question is, in what context? It's quite easy to get lost in the idea of "what's right and what's wrong", and it's even easier to turn what's wrong into right and vice versa with a simply shift in context and perspective. People see things differently and hence have formed their different opinions based on that. But whether a child should be aborted or not all depends on the circumstances.
-
Ah, well RD, there doesn't seem to be much for me to respond to, since I had misunderstood your premise. Sorry about that.
However, the topic of cognition in relationship to ethics might be an interesting discussion in itself, though if that so interests you or others, it might be best to move the examples from people and fetuses to animals. Would a starfish's distributed brain, for example, provide sufficient cognition that pain could then have an ethical weight and in turn affect research conducted on starfish. But since I'm not sure this topic will interest others, I'll reserve comment until interest is apparent.
-
Would a starfish's distributed brain, for example, provide sufficient cognition that pain could then have an ethical weight and in turn affect research conducted on starfish. But since I'm not sure this topic will interest others, I'll reserve comment until interest is apparent.
The problem with ethics at present is that it's incredibly flexible in regards to animals, wherein the sacrifice and preservation of animals dwells upon necessity and rarity which is often misunderstood as "ethics". Killing a chicken for meat seems logical, but killing a dog for meat is horrifyingly evil, and yet (as Sherlock Holmes himself wonders) that doesn't really make any logical sense. Why can't we eat horses? Why are Hindus against eating cows?
In the field of science, even more so: whatever isn't human is usually "okay" for genetic mutation experiment (and most of the "prototypes" end up being killed to preserve biological legacy).
-
<pedantic> That's largely cultural, actually. The French eat horses, or used to as of ~100 years ago. They still eat dogs in Korea. Hell, the last human cannibal society, the Fore of New Guinea, only gave it up about half a century ago, and that, as I understand it, more due to problems with disease propagation than any innate sense of disgust at the practice. </pedantic>
-
Remember what RD stated, that the human brain does not develop until few weeks after conception, wherein the babe creates a "self" identity. Before conception, all the information passed from mother to babe from every senses and nourishment are actually the result of the babe being "part of the human body", of one identity, and that is of the mother. In which case, abortion at that point is like cutting your own arm rather than killing someone.
However, in regards to ethics, I do point this question to RD (I'm not really against abortion, but this question is just for amusement's sake). Considering the development of ego reaches its first stage 7 weeks after the conception of the child, and if that makes it perfectly fine for abortion, does that mean it's perfectly fine to kill a child after conception but before the first stage? I mean, no brain no pain; simple as that, right? Of course, I can anticipate what your response may be, but I'm far too curious to hear it from you.
I've addressed this in this thread; in fact, in the very post you refer to.
No brain, no pain. It's a simple as that. Thus, there cannot possibly be an ethical case for opposing abortion prior to seven weeks after conception.
I will take issue with some of what you're saying though. It's premature to say that the ego starts developing at that point. We can say that it potentially becomes possible for the ego to begin forming at about seven weeks after conception. As of yet, we are not clear on what exactly about the brain is responsible for the phenomena that is consciousness. Additionally, the ego is a philosophical abstract; it doesn't necessarily have a discrete physical cause. Which is not to say it doesn't. Just that we can't, at least to my knowledge, say that it does.
I will also take issue with your use of the term "child" in this context. Child refers to a post-birth state. While for convenience or poetry (or for that matter, manipulation) a woman may be referred to as being pregnant with a child, it's not strictly correct. For most of the pregnancy, she's pregnant with a fetus, which is not a child, and does not become one until after delivery. Despite what misogyny activists will say, an abortion is not, and cannot be, killing a child.
However, the topic of cognition in relationship to ethics might be an interesting discussion in itself, though if that so interests you or others, it might be best to move the examples from people and fetuses to animals. Would a starfish's distributed brain, for example, provide sufficient cognition that pain could then have an ethical weight and in turn affect research conducted on starfish. But since I'm not sure this topic will interest others, I'll reserve comment until interest is apparent.
I agree, which is part of why I chose this title for this thread when I split it off from the old one.
Speaking of the consciousness in animals is an interesting and difficult position. Just ask Descartes! The difficulty arises because the application of the ethical principle is based in some part on practical knowledge that we simply lack. It's a tough nut to crack, as consciousness is subjective, and it's not like we can just Voight-Kampff a starfish.
I'll say this at present: I do not know what level of cognition a starfish possesses, but that knowledge is absolutely ethically relevant to the treatment of starfish.
-
Why can't we eat horses?
Actually that's pretty interesting. I know someone already pointed out that the French ate horses up until relatively recently, but it basically came down to the point when we first started RIDING them. Prior to that, we ate them like cows. After that, it fell out of practice, because they became more valuable as mounts in a lot of cases. Not all, of course. My art history teacher equated it to 'forgetting that a sheep was good for anything besides wool.'
-
Not 6 months ago I walked into a restaurant in downtown Osaka and got horse straight off the menu. Where people do and don't eat horse is mainly a cultural thing.
-
not to be an ass, but let's look at what we know scientifically. this person is using as the basis of their argument a chronicle of many books, that were 'pick n choose' based on what the government wanted people to see. written and mistranslated several times over, originating from some bedouins with a severe lack of vitamin c and god knows what else. with countless contradictions in its pages (just google no need to post them here). vs using logic and reason, not 3-4k years old mistranslation of a mistranslation of several books. I personally refuse to argue with anyone citing religious texts as a source of scientific info, it's not. we can say when the brain begins to develop and go from there, always improving through science and an admittance that things may be completely different tomorrow with new discoveries, not that all things were set in stone forever by people 3k years ago who didn't even know what a 'google' or 'peer reviewed journal' or vitamin c or a friggin' microbe was.
it's our duty to do our own research but if you are one who is too lazy to even do that, should you not rely on people like einstein and tesla rather than bedouins from 2k bc and the like? you can say the bible claims this and that and form your ethical views off that, or you can join everyone else and become involved in science and philosophy (the love of knowledge, a willingness to admit you may be totally wrong, and a desire to want to correct yourself if you are wrong) whose opinions are based in science, logic, reason, observation.
-
Is it all right to believe in the possibility of a god or some kind of sentient universe and still think abortions are a-ok?
-
I don't see what the conflict is. Does your 'personal jesus' specifically say abortions are bad? anything on prenatal? rape/incest etc?
-
Is it all right to believe in the possibility of a god or some kind of sentient universe and still think abortions are a-ok?
Yup!
I don't think the problem lies in believing in "God" (or even the Christian God), but what your principles say about abortions anyway. In the end, it all depends of principles, not just beliefs.
-
... written and mistranslated several times over, originating from some bedouins with a severe lack of vitamin c and god knows what else. with countless contradictions in its pages (just google no need to post them here). vs using logic and reason, not 3-4k years old mistranslation of a mistranslation of several books.
Here I must take umbrage as a historian. As far a reliable texts go, the Christian bible is one of the best. Now, by reliable I mean specifically that the text as we have it today is very similar to the text as it was written: in this I make no claim as to its internal consistency or validity. The reasons why the dead sea scrolls were such an impressive find is that they verified that the text of the Old Testament changed very between when the scrolls were created (70-ish CE) and when they were discovered (1949 CE). This was substantially far less than any document written at the period had reason to be. As for the New Testament, it is likewise vetted by the numerous quotations provided of it by the letters of the church fathers (and occasional mother). Because of writers like Origen, we can reconstruct the New Testament (and Old) from alternate sources.
To be fair, there have been translations of the bible, which inherently involves imprecision, although the number of outright mistranslations have been likewise impressively rare. Some words have a direct translation in another language (such as apple and pomme), but other words do not. Translators then have to try to convey the original meaning. This, however, starts messing with the original flow of the text. Add to this the difficulty that languages change over time: a translation can thus accurately represent what a word meant at the time it was translated while still being misleading regarding what the word meant when it was written. So yes, translations of the bible are not perfect, but by far and large, they are damn good translations.
In short, you are more likely to be reading the author’s original intent when you read the bible than when you read Plato’s Symposium. You don't get consistency like we find in the bible (which isn't even too terribly unique among religious documents) until you get to the printing press.
Also, to note, argumentum ad hominem (such as your comments about vitamin C) have no place at the table when logic or reason preside.
-
I'll say this at present: I do not know what level of cognition a starfish possesses, but that knowledge is absolutely ethically relevant to the treatment of starfish.
This statement seems to indicate that in your perspective, ethical behavior is primarily dependent on the level of awareness of the object being acted upon. That is, it might be ethical (or, at least, non-ethical) to act a certain way to an unaware starfish that would be unethical to act to an aware starfish. Is that correct?
-
That is correct. If starfish have no awareness, no conscious experience, then what is ethically permissible in interacting with starfish is more broad than in the case that starfish are in fact self-aware.
-
That is correct. If starfish have no awareness, no conscious experience, then what is ethically permissible in interacting with starfish is more broad than in the case that starfish are in fact self-aware.
And just for fun's sake, here comes Tushantin! :D
Human beings can also lapse into lack of awareness or conscious experiences despite remaining alive thanks to their involuntary respiratory. So if what you're saying is true, then it gives me a blank check to do whatever I want with them (including kill them); isn't that right?
But if that's the case, why do majority of physicians and doctors take a Hippocratic Oath that includes ethics pertaining to not harming these individuals despite their lack of awareness? Why is hurting such an individual considered "unethical"?
I don't mean to be rude or anything, RD, because your statement is quite a logical explanation, but the matter of ethics seem beyond logical capacities especially since rationalisation, despite the lack of plausibility, has the capacity to bend ethics in the favor of personal bias and need. Then again "ethics" have indeed been a basic need for human civilization.
-
Human beings can also lapse into lack of awareness or conscious experiences despite remaining alive thanks to their involuntary respiratory. So if what you're saying is true, then it gives me a blank check to do whatever I want with them (including kill them); isn't that right?
Incorrect. For the second time in this thread, tushantin, I will refer you to what I have said previously in this thread:
I can see how you could come to that conclusion, but it is not my position. When I speak of a conscious entity, I don't necessarily mean an individual who is presently conscious. I mean an individual who poses is a consciousness, even if it is dormant at present. A week old embryo has never been conscious, and lacks the capacity to be conscious. A drugged woman has been conscious, and if she has not been given an over dose, likely will be again. She is still in possession of a consciousness.
I did not change my position on this topic in the time between my posts. Presented with my actual thoughts on the topic, it should be clear that your question is based on a faulty premise, so I hope you'll take no offense at my declining to answer it explicitly.
I don't mean to be rude or anything, RD, because your statement is quite a logical explanation, but the matter of ethics seem beyond logical capacities especially since rationalisation, despite the lack of plausibility, has the capacity to bend ethics in the favor of personal bias and need. Then again "ethics" have indeed been a basic need for human civilization.
Rationalization is done after the fact to justify actions, generally actions that are at odds with ones stated or held principles. My logical thoughts on the topic are meant to be preemptive, that is, if you consider the logic prior to acting, you should act consistently and do so in line with the logic presented.
Let us be clear here: That individuals rationalize their unethical choices to themselves does not mean logic has no place in determining ethical principals. Logic is necessary, along with evidence and reason, whenever we wish to solve a problem or deepen our understanding of a topic. Ethics is not an exception to this.
My goal for an ethical system is to maximize the well being of conscious entities. If you can think of a better set of tools to determine principals to bring about that goal than logic, evidence, and reason, you are welcome to argue for them. Of course, you might also argue that my goal for ethics is invalid. Again, if this is so, I'd love to hear why you consider that to be the case.
-
That is correct. If starfish have no awareness, no conscious experience, then what is ethically permissible in interacting with starfish is more broad than in the case that starfish are in fact self-aware.
Interesting. Here we have a divergence between us, as I tend to place more emphasis on the doer, rather than the subject. I find that this perspective allows one to more readily create general ethical guidelines, although this is perhaps merely the result of a misunderstanding of your own perspective.
For example, I propose that it is ethical to, in any action, minimize the pain that the action causes to the greatest reasonable extent. This is an ethic that we find fairly well ingrained in society. Ideally, for example, our animals are to be killed as painlessly as possible, regardless of if we're using them for food, science, or companionship, and regardless of this level of cognition. Regardless of if a creature can remember pain, or understand the context of pain, for creatures that can feel pain, it is unpleasant, even if only in the moment. Insofar that it is in our power to minimize that pain, it is our ethical obligation to do so.
Of course, this still does take into consideration the object of the action: I can't cause pain to a rock, so there is no ethical obligation to minimize the pain caused to that rock.
There is, of course, the flipside to this. Lack of cognition in the actor alters the ethics of the action. A cat lacks sufficient awareness to act ethically, and so when it fails to minimize pain by playing with a mouse, it does not act ethically or unethically, but rather "non-ethically."
To return to the rock, for a moment, we could likewise apply a general ethical principle to it as well. We might hold that it is unethical to destroy things without just cause. If so, then we could say that wantonly destroying rocks is unethical, regardless of if other human beings value it as art or not. Not that I expect this specific example to be a point of great significance in an ethical society, but the principle behind it well might be central.
-
malnutrition is not an attack of character, it's an attack on credibility. can you really trust some dude with no food really saw god or just tripped balls? same thing with medival monks charged with the task of translation. no vitamin c or other nutrients during winter, they'd flog the piss outta themselves, voila psychedelic trip. some were smart enough to just use amanita muscaria, other cultures ahayuasca, but other than that it's like burning down the barn to cook bacon. sorry, when you trip balls you don't enter a new universe, your brain just has troubles interpreting everything properly cuz it's SOAKED IN POISON. can hardly take the words of such a person as scientific fact. was einstein high on lsd while he wrote the theory of relativity?
-
I think you and I have a fairly similar view, Thought, although we're coming at it from opposite ends. The key practical difference seems to be that I view things as more of a spectrum where as you view seem to view things as a series of tiers.
-
Chi_z, the problem is that even if you were right in your suppositions, they would still be meaningless. Consider what the symptoms of vitamin C deficiency are: easy bruising, slow healing, lethargy, and gum disease. No one with scurvy is going to be "tripping balls." Thus, saying that a source isn't credible because they lack vitamin c is an ad hominem attack: you are attempting to reject a claim based on an irrelevant characteristic.
Even if scurvy did cause people to hallucinate, your basic supposition is still false. You seem to be mistaking ancient peoples for sailors on really long voyages. The truth is, ancient peoples did not lack nutrition, on a national level, to the extent that intense symptoms would appear. Take medieval Europeans, for example: a peasant diet generally consisted of ale, bread, peas, and beans. Where's vitamin C in that diet? In the peas. Now, this isn't to say that peasants were getting enough vitamin C to meet modern standards, but they were generally getting enough to avoid scurvy. But, you might notice, I am talking of peasants. What of monks? They were land owners. Their supply of food was far more stable than that of peasants, and their diet slightly more varied (such as with animal products, some of which also contain notable levels of vitamin C). Indeed, perhaps you can think of some European monk who is famous for his peas?
Most symptoms of nutrient deficiency are more physiological and less psychological. To be fair, irritability and depression are common psychological effects, but neither of those come close to hallucinations.
In short, malnutrition is entirely irrelevant to what you are attempting to use it for.
-
you're hung up on the vitamin c thing, which is a small part of it. your whole post was about that....if they are missing vitamin c, they are missing a boatload of things. lack of sun, for one, countless antioxidants, extremely low glycogen, blood sugar, etc, combined with general malnourishment and extreme 'germiness' of the times. once again, during winters the monks would flog themselves until they 'saw god', just a trip from a malnourished over powered brain is all. the wounds would not heal (lack of vitamin c) and fester, all sorts of shit gets into the bloodstream and the brain can't handle that (neither can the liver due to malnourishment), and voila. and then with the bedouins we have amanita muscaria, severe dehydration, lack of knowledge of science, etc. ezekiel's wheel? c'mon, either that's a trip or a ufo. graham hancock anyone? terrence mckenna?
this is a good introduction into similar subjects, of the vast amount of books from names already mentioned, especially mckenna as there is an incredible amount of scientific backing in his work http://psychonautdocs.com/docs/thevarieties.pdf
-
This is an unfortunate digression, since it relates not at all to the topic of the thread. However, since logic and reason are important to ethics, it seems at least in part to be justifiable to address your fallacies.
I used vitamin C because that was the one you named, but let me be clear: malnutrition can’t cause the symptoms that you are ascribing to it. I have specifically checked lack of calories, carbohydrates, protein, fat, Vitamin A, Vitamin B1, Vitamin B2, Niacin, Vitamin B12, Vitamin C, Vitamin D, Vitamin E, Vitamin K, Omega fats, Cholesterol, Calcium, Magnesium, Potassium, Sodium, Iron, and Iodine. I don't doubt that you can find something edible that I haven't yet looked into, but if you would like to present it, then please do your research first. Make sure that lacking that nutrient can cause hallucinations and then please be sure that the people groups in question actually lacked it.
You will note that I had originally criticized your nutrition argument and did not say anything about your other, newer "claims." Since it seems that you would like me to, allow me to provide a small sampling concerning amanita muscaria. Along the way I will specifically identify those elements that your argument was lacking.
First, with an argument such as yours, you need to establish possibility. This is where you failed with nutrition, but you did better with the mushrooms: they actually can cause psychedelic episodes. However, you stopped here, so your argument remains an appeal to probability fallacy. It is necessary for something to be possible, but mere possibility tells us nothing useful.
Second, you need to establish the accessibility of the mushrooms. This would have several steps. The first is if the mushroom grows in the necessary regions. It grows in woodlands, so that rules out the desert-dwelling Bedouins, but not the swamp-draining European monks. Next, you would need to establish the individual’s access to the mushroom. A traveling mystic might be able to gather some, but an anchorite would only have had the strict diet that was provided to him.
Third, you need to establish intent. Why would the individual in question have taken the mushroom? If they knew it was psychedelic, where did they find that out from? If they didn't know, why did they eat an unknown mushroom? This plays into the repetition that we often see in the experiences of holy individuals: they encounter "god" several times. In short, you have to show that the individual intended to take them.
Fourth, you need to explain the public reaction. By far the majority of individuals who claimed to have talked to god were labeled crazy, drunkards, or possessed. Why, then, was the individual in question labeled otherwise? This is actually a very fascinating subject, but one that seems unlikely to interest you. However, at its most relevant level, successful holy men and women in Europe were watched closer than modern celebrities to see if they were faking their experiences.
Fifth, you need to explain the gap in the records. Despite there being numerous texts on how to obtain a religious experience (including texts that recommended mortification of the flesh), psychedelic substances do not appear. Nor are there records regarding either successful or unsuccessful "saints" who used them. As John King noted, if these mushrooms were responsible for any religious experiences, then that is history's best kept secret, since there is no documentation of it.
Amusingly, your arguments could possibly apply to St. Francis of Assisi (the Elvis of saints), if you were able to answer each point, but they couldn't apply to Julian of Norwich, who was an anchoress and contemplative mystic (that is, she didn't have access to psychedelics and didn't beat herself).
Do keep in mind that I have only given and supported the statement that logical fallacies (such as the ones you have used) do not belong in a discussion involving reason and logic. This would also includes the argumentum ad logicam: although your arguments are fallacious, that doesn't mean that your ultimate conclusion (that the bible is bunk) is wrong.
-
once again, malnourishment is the smallest part of it, you're leaving out the fact that people had no idea what germs were, whipped the piss outta themselves, and let the wounds fester. 'and then I saw god'. you of course don't get that just because you haven't ate an orange in 4 months, you get that because you are incredibly unintelligent and do everything to make your brain hate you. guess we'll have to agree to disagree, unless you or I decided to willingly malnourish ourselves, beat the piss out of ourselves, and decide to write stuff down. there's all sorts of drugs available in the desert, though dehydration does result in hallucinations. on the slim chance these people weren't either tripping balls or had mental disorders, if they were in their right mind they were extremely evil to make things up out of thin air and claim it the truth to other humans. religion is by far the single worst thing to ever come about from human existence.
-
guess we'll have to agree to disagree...
Not really. You continue to make fallacious assertions: you can agree to drop the issue, of course, but insofar as I support reason and logic, I must continue to hound your arguments. I do apologize that this must be: as I noted before, I am not claiming that your final conclusion (that religion is bunk) is wrong, merely that your arguments do not belong in the mouth of someone who claims to hold to reason and logic.
You are making the same logical fallacies as you started out making. If your argument is that disease caused delirium, then at least then you are stating a valid possibility. However, if that is your argument, then malnutrition and mortification are only relevant insofar as they lower the immune system and expose the body to infecting agents. Since one can (and usually does) become sick without these elements, they are extraneous. I still call them ad hominem attacks, but if you would wish, we can be kind and call them red herrings instead.
As for disease itself, as noted, science is quite aware that some sicknesses can cause delirium. But it is an “argument from probability” fallacy to then suppose that because a given religious figure COULD have had delirium resulting from illness, they actually had delirium resulting from illness. We can use many of the same questions I asked about psychedelic about diseases. Did delirium-causing diseases exist in Europe? Yes. Could holy individuals in Europe be infected by such diseases? Yes. The gap in the records is still quite problematic, however.
I don't doubt that you reject most medieval documents as reliable sources. However, by knowing the biases of the authors, we can still obtain pertinent information. Europeans in the middle ages had the perception of a holy illness. Saints were expected to become ill, or to have some malady, as a sign that they were particularly pious. There was a high level of motivation for religious figures to appear sick, and there was a high level of motivation for their vitae to contain this information. As such, we should expect an over-representation of sickness when compared to reality, rather than an under-representation. However, in studying vitae, one quickly realizes that few individuals were sick at the time of their first religious experiences. Some did indeed become sick later in life, but the types of sicknesses described are rarely in line with known diseases that cause delirium. Most appear, in all honesty, to be the result of hypochondriac. And, of course, only a portion of those who experienced delirium would have experienced it in such a way that would have been acceptable to society at large (more would-be saints were ostracized than accepted). Furthermore, as the Middle Ages progressed, the number of saints who experienced physical diseases decreased ("spiritual" manifestations became more popular: I am sure you can postulate why this might have been).
The result of what we know about medieval holy men and women is that only a portion were ever ill when they had a religious experience, and only a few of those who were ill sometime in their life were ill when they first had a religious experience. The logical conclusion from this is that your "slim chance" is actually the reverse. There is only a slim chance that any given religious figure was on drugs or in a sickness induced delirium when they had a religious experience. Your claim to the contrary has no basis in logic, reason, or the evidence.
Your new claim about dehydration likewise doesn't stand up to a basic scholarly inquiry. Yes, severe dehydration can cause delirium. Desert peoples survive, however, because they know how to stay hydrated. In order to dehydration to be a valid explanation, you would need to explain the extraordinary circumstances that led someone who normally could stay hydrated to become so dehydrated that they became delirious (and, in turn, explain how they stopped the delirium before they died of dehydration, so as to spread their message).
But again, even if all your claims were accurate, they are still meaningless. Let us discard those who were malnourished, those who were injured, those who were sick, and those who were dehydrated: there are still individuals who have had religious experiences. The twirling dervishes are a wonderful example. Since they don't suffer from any of your proposed causes of religious experiences, will you accept their messages as being really from god?
If I may be so bold as to assume your answer before you give it, I suspect it is "of course not." Again, this is why your arguments are so ineffectual: you are addressing the circumstances around religious experiences, when it is really religious experiences themselves that you reject. These experiences are actually fairly well studied (given their religious nature). Modern scientists know what behaviors can cause them, and they know what happens in the brain when these occur. Some scientists even propose that they can artificially induce them. Suffice it to say, religious experiences are real, at least in the sense that they can occur in healthy, sane individuals, even if not in the sense that a person is really connecting with god. You gain nothing by discarding the circumstances of just a few such experiences.
Perhaps you'd prefer to instead attack the experiences themselves? You are welcome to, but I warn you, you'll have no better luck there than you have with any of your other "arguments."
-
people can get lost in the desert. things happen and you could lose your food/water supply. even if the person died as a result, whats to stop them from attempting to write down as best they could the wacky things they thought they were seeing.
"they lower the immune system and expose the body to infecting agents"
yea I know, thats exactly the point I've made on several occasions now. When you are lacking nutrients and then proceed to whip the piss outta yourself, let the wounds fester and are already a germy mofo as is, your body and brain can't take it. thus fugged up stuff happens to you, unstable reality whether from visual or aural hallucinations or any number of things related to severe treatment of the body. what are the chances that a lot of these decently nourished non whipthepissoutthemselves holy men were under the influence of a mental disorder?
-
Very low. Again, religious experiences are a scientifically studied phenomenon. Perhaps you are misunderstanding the word "scientifically"? I do mean modern science, with ongoing studies, published in well respected, peer-reviewed journals. Michael Persinger's work is perhaps the most famous in the field. He even created a device that is supposed to artificially produce a religion experience. Richard Dawkins even subjected himself to this device. The point being, we know enough about religious experiences to know many triggers. Andrew Newberg, for example, has identified repetitive and rhythmic activities as being able to produce them. Prayer and meditation alone can produce a religious experience, as can dance (which including the Dervishes), physical exercise, and sex. Psychedelic substances can cause it, as can pain (such as produced from mortification of the flesh). So can stroke and seizures. Notably, they aren't particularly common during times of illness.
Again, a problem with your approach is that it doesn't address the larger issue of religious experiences. Even assuming all your factual errors were correct, and even assuming all your fallacious arguments were valid, you still haven't said anything meaningful.
But, you have given numerous factual errors, of which I've pointed out a few. You have given numerous fallacious arguments, of which I've identified a few. Indeed, the very last sentence in your previous post is a logical fallacy!
what are the chances that a lot of these decently nourished non whipthepissoutthemselves holy men were under the influence of a mental disorder?
That is the "appeal to probability" fallacy! Again! And, I would still maintain, an ad hominem attack, since you are attributing a negative trait to a group without evidence. And a red herring, since RE's have occurred to individual without mental disorders.
None of this means that religions weren't started by individuals who were "tripping balls," but to make that claim, you need evidence, you need logical arguments, and you lack both.
-
I blame the misunderstanding on the internet. I wasn't making an argument in that last sentence I was asking a legitimate questeeown.
-
Alas, questions still have argumentative weight, and thus can contain a logical fallacy. Indeed, the "loaded question" fallacy can only take question form!
Anywho, I think my point's been made, so unless you wish to discuss it further, I'll be quiet now.
-
this reminds me, we don't seem to have a religion thread on this board do we?
-
this reminds me, we don't seem to have a religion thread on this board do we?
There are a LOT of religion threads in General Discussion. They haven't been updated in a while, but better to necromance those than start a new one.